The Government has backed away from one of the most controversial provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2026 following widespread public criticism, but the opposition Alliance For Change (AFC) says the legislation should still be withdrawn and redrafted following a more transparent and inclusive consultation process.
The controversy centres on provisions in the bill that would have established a closed registry for first-time sexual offenders, limiting public access to information about convicted offenders.
Just days after the legislation was tabled in the National Assembly by Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Dr. Vindhya Persaud, President Irfaan Ali directed that the bill be sent to a Select Committee and publicly signalled support for an open registry.
The announcement was made by the Minister and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, who said both the President and Cabinet support making any sex offenders registry publicly accessible.
The move followed days of criticism from opposition parties, social commentators and members of the public, many of whom argued that a closed registry would place the interests of offenders ahead of victims and public safety.
The proposed legislation, which was tabled in the National Assembly on June 5 by Persaud, also contains provisions requiring convicted offenders to report to designated authorities and, in some hinterland and remote communities where there is no police presence, to a Toshao. The Alliance For Change (AFC) has questioned the practicality of that requirement, asking why communities still lack adequate police coverage and whether offenders can realistically be expected to comply.
However, public attention quickly centred on the proposed closed registry and provisions that would have restricted public access to information about certain convicted offenders.
In defending the legislation, Persaud explained that the controversial provision reflected recommendations emerging from consultations. That explanation has generated a new controversy surrounding the consultation process itself.
Government officials have indicated that approximately 60 organisations participated in consultations that informed the legislation. However, the identities of those organisations, the recommendations they submitted, and the policy documents that informed the drafting of the bill have not been publicly disclosed.
The Government now finds itself in the unusual position of distancing itself from a recommendation it says emerged from an extensive consultation process. The development has prompted calls for greater transparency regarding how the original policy decision was reached.
Stakeholders are seeking disclosure of the organisations involved, the papers that informed the recommendations, and the rationale that led to the inclusion of a closed registry in the bill.
The issue has also raised broader questions about public consultation and policymaking. If consultations overwhelmingly supported a closed registry, some observers question why Cabinet and the President are now seeking to override that recommendation. Conversely, if the Government always favoured an open registry, questions arise as to why legislation reflecting the opposite position was tabled in Parliament.
The decision to send the Bill to a Select Committee has likewise attracted scrutiny. While Government officials have presented the move as an opportunity for broader discussion and review, some stakeholders argue that meaningful consultation should occur before legislation is tabled in Parliament, not after public backlash forces a reconsideration of key provisions.
For many observers, the issue has now expanded beyond whether the registry should be open or closed. It has become a debate about transparency, accountability and public confidence in the legislative process. Calls are growing for the Government to publish the consultation findings, identify the organisations involved, and release the policy papers that informed the bill so that Guyanese can independently assess how the controversial recommendation was reached.
Meanwhile, the AFC has maintained that the Bill must be withdrawn.
In a strongly worded statement, the party called for the bill to be scrapped and for Persaud to resign, arguing that the legislation represented a serious lapse in judgment.
“The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2026 is a slap in the face of the many women, men, and children who have suffered sexual abuse. It sends a troubling message that the concerns of victims are secondary to the interests of offenders,” the AFC stated.
With the legislation now headed to a Select Committee, pressure is mounting on the Government not only to explain its sudden reversal on the registry issue but also to substantiate its claim that the controversial provision emerged from consultations. The coming debate is likely to focus as much on transparency and public trust as it does on the contents of the bill itself.
